Now you can be sure. — Wallows

Iran said on Saturday it was now capable of raising uranium enrichment past the 20% level and had launched advanced centrifuge machines in further breaches of commitments to limit its nuclear activity under a 2015 deal with world powers.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear/iran-further-breaches-nuclear-deal-says-it-can-exceed-20-enrichment-idUSKCN1VS05B

IAEA confirms Tehran's announcement last week that it began refining uranium, while EU considers reimposing sanctions.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/iran-breaches-nuclear-deal-enrichment-push-watchdog-191111183454063.html

They’ve been consistently breaching the deal.

Then why make the following post:

Because it is true.

You're playing exactly the same partisan game as the people you criticize.

I haven’t criticized anyone for being partisan.

Unlike you, I think what are leaders say does matter. My primary issue with Trump is not "thought crimes" - it's that he's arrogant and stupid. This is regularly shown in his tweets, rally-streams of consciousness, and his Fox interviews. IMO, anyone who doesn't see this is either blinded by faith in Trump or they are are even dumber than he is.

You don’t like the way he talks. I get it. But if a good talker is your standard for good leadership than any actor who can read a script will suffice as your ideal politician. That frightens me because talking good is all some people can do.

Isn't that politics-as-usual? Never give credit to the other side for anything good, and always assign blame for anything bad.

The ultimate irony is that no politician has done this to the degree that Trump has. Would you like to be reminded about the various attacks he's made? Oh, that's right - you don't care what he says. Oddly, you do care about what his political opponents say.

No, I don’t care what they say. But I know you’d just love to reiterate trumps speech and thought crimes because it’s really all you guys have.

I think this misses the point. If it were as simple as taking out bad people then I'm sure many would be in favour of taking out Kim Jong-un, Xi, Duterte, Putin, etc. But the reality is that there would be consequences that just aren't worth whatever would be gained. In this case people are concerned that provoking Iran risks a conflict that will cause more damage than whatever it is Soleimani would have been responsible for were he alive.

It’s also a big slap in the face to Iranian aggression.

Iran sabotages two oil tankers, Trump does not retaliate. Iran captures British oil tanker, Trump does not retaliate. Iran captures US drone, Trump does not retaliate. Iran attacks Saudi Oil field, Trump does not retaliate. Iran attacks US embassy, Trump finally retaliates. Now people are concerned about provoking conflict.

Sometimes a Trump fuck-up is just a Trump fuck-up...

But for all the ways the anti-Trumpers contort their principles in order to condemn him in every possible way, Trump supporters put on a much more grotesque display of hypocrisy and ignorance.

Why do they scramble to defend everything Trump has ever done or said? Clearly, if anything, Trump has directly robbed America of what dignity and respect it had left. Are they just pot committed? Stubborn?

I thought you guys were "patriots", not Patriot's fan boys..

Chicken little and the boy who cried wolf come to mind. The anti-Trumpist media and their base have been claiming economic disaster, the next Hitler, fascism and nuclear war for years. They feared him so much that they abused FISA to spy on his campaign, ruined the ethics of journalism, abused the constitution and impeachment and divided the country to undo the past election

It’s easy to lampoon a public figure, especially when there is a corporate, social and economic benefit for doing so. It’s a trite more difficult to stand against an unruly, unhinged mob of chicken littles who claim they can peer into the future and see our demise. The problem is their prognostications have been proven false every time, so much so that when a real wolf shows up (Soleimani?), they defend the the wolf in order to decry the sheepdog defending them.

Anti-Trumpism leads one to reserve their finger-wagging for Trump while allowing them to remain silent on Iranian theocrats and terrorists. Trump is the Great Scapegoat of whatever happens next, so long as whatever happens makes things demonstrably worse.

The US has been the biggest economy for a long time. The only thing is that it isn't as dominant as it was in the 1950's, when Europe was still rebuilding and China was destroying itself with Communism. I'm not forgetting my own point. US foreign policy has morphed to unilateral bullying without any kind of long term thinking behind it. It doesn't care a shit about it's own allies or bother creating alliances. Now with the Trump yesmen alongside Trump, it's just one disaster lead by tweets. I have no clue what they are doing...and likely the Trump administration hasn't either. It's just reactions to things that happen.

I appreciate your opinion, ssu. You are a far better historian than I. But when your bureaucrats and globalists told us they created the end of history, they gave us the clash of civilizations instead. Trump is left to clean up their mess and he’s doing a damn good job of it.

Leaders ought to think how they can get their team to work for the common objective. A leader isn't someone who unilaterally decides to do something and bullies others that if they don't oblige, they will be working with the enemy. That simply isn't leadership.

And if you don't want to be a leader, then don't be. As I've said, countries would be OK with the US being a leader, but if opts not to be one, it's not the end of the World.

Look. Nobody will take your place. China will just have a bigger say in Eurasia and Africa, Russia in Europe and Middle East. That's it. There's just going to be this shit storm for a while when you go back home to eat your apple pie and the regional powers adapt to the new reality and sort it out themselves.

That’s the way it should be, in my opinion. The US needs to step away from the world stage, and especially leave that pile of dust to its inhabitants. We no longer require their oil, their workers, their ancient tribalisms. The American tax-payer pays to build schools and facilities in Iraq. They pay to fund NATO, the UN, and train armies and peacekeepers around the world. No one in Eurasia wants us there, even if the US presided over the Long Peace. I’d love to see how long the Old World can last on it’s own two feet.

Truth is, Trump desecrated many years of effort by Obama's administration to convince Iran not to pursue nuclear capability. Quite sad, I think.

It turns out Obama’s pallets of cash directly funded state terrorism and opened up Iran to arm sales from Russia and elsewhere. Now they are using those weapons.

Wrong

I meant oil production, but you’re right. I’ll concede that point because I did say “energy”.

But other than that you’re putting words in my mouth and forgetting your own point, about how some time ago the US was really a leader in the World. You posted a video from the 50’s to give force to it. I assumed you knew I was comparing then and now, not Trump and Obama. But no, in typical anti-Trump fashion we’re right back to anti-Trumpism.

And this shows how illogical and incoherent this is. Isn't that 'defence of the West' that you are supposed to be so tired of? And why would there even have to be a Leader country? Still, other countries would be just fine if the US would show leadership. But no. You won't do that.

The US especially under Trump has done the uttermost to vacate this leadership position. It's not surprising that the French President called NATO braindead. It is that. NATO still would have the smart agenda of the past: that is keep the Russians out, keep the US in and keep Germany down. but this administration surely doesn't want that. Yet of course, Trump supporters like this. They love that the US doesn't form alliances but goes alone. They don't see ANY reason for there being a NATO. These same people don't even know that there were two defunct similar organizations (CENTO and SEATO) which were replaced by simply NOTHING. Or with previous allies being now threats to the US.

As I've stated, I think US foreign policy is dead for now. The hubris of the Bush neocons is replaced by the total confusion of the Trump era. Hopefully adults in Washington will take it over sometime in the future. But I'm not hopeful. The biggest failure has been that the foreign policy establishment has totally failed in making the past US policy to be understood by the voters.

That’s right, and now the other members have to pay their fair share, because thankless Europeans have been benefitting from American defense and money for the past 70 years and have hardly anything to show for it. Yes, a leader would rethink these alliances, especially if they prove to be a waste of time, resources and money. You guys weren’t paying your fair share and act surprised when someone shows you otherwise. God forbid Europe pays its way in its own defense.

I’m not too sure, to tell you the truth.

The more irrational you behave, the greater you effectiveness of destruction in a war scenario.

Thing is, in this case the decision seems entirely irrational, and that's scary.

I'm curious, but what do you think is irrational about it? I ask because Iran's been poking this bear for a while now and it finally bit back. Trump took a risk Obama and Bush refused to, that's for certain. But upon seeing the middle east after their administrations I'm not so sure they're the epitome of rationality, or rationality has done little for the middle east. I'm of the opinion that a leader should stand by his red line.

Surely you don't really believe killing Soleimani somehow severs the link between Iran and the Kremlin. At worst, it's an inconvenience.

Someone Putin directly worked with in military operations in Syria is blown to pieces, and at worst it’s an inconvenience? Even if I was to grant that, an inconvenience isn’t a benefit.

Are you suggesting this alienates Russia from the U.S.? What makes you think that? How does this change anything- Russia was already their ally and arms supplier, and we already didn't like that they were doing this. What changes?

No, I’m suggesting Trump just blew up Putin’s Iranian military ally and he cannot do anything about it. If he did, it would put His country at odds with Iran’s enemies: US, Israel, UAE and Saudi Arabia, relationships Russia has been cultivating in recent decades.

Putin benefits from bad perceptions of the US. Russian oil benefits from supply constraints from the middle east. Major instability would hurt them, but it hurts the US more, and this makes it a win for Russia.

It’s a big loss for Russia. It was the Iran deal which allowed Putin to continue selling arms to Iran. If the UN sanctions Iran again Putin can say bye bye to his arms deals there.

I think it's pretty sad that NOS4A2 is too old for a draft because imagine being that stupid and jingoistic and being over 30, rather than just some 14 year old that would hopefully grow out of it.

There is no draft, genius.

Yes. When the US bombs a Russian ally, Russia comes out ahead, in terms of influence and with trade, particularly arms sales. Is there any downside for Russia?

That might happen.

But then again Soleimani was a direct link between Khomeini and the Kremlin, and worked with Putin in Syria. He just lost a key ally. I do not think more trade and influence with Iran is worth risking further alienation from America and her allies, with the recent massive arms deals and good relations with Iran's biggest enemies. Putin will not benefit from anything that might further destabilize that region.

The guy is sticking pins in us because he genuinely hates us and has been hating us for decades. This is the regime, not the people. We can play nice with them, but that doesn't change the fact that we have diametrically opposed interests in the middle east. What Iran is doing now in targeting the US via proxy makes sense for it. It makes sense to ramp up the aggression if the US isn't responding too. That's just good strategy.

It was a good strategy, until you get blown up. But I suppose if you’re a theocrat that’s the sort of martyrdom you want.

An embassy is American territory. Dictators aren’t swayed by moral force, as Orwell once said: what despots fear is physical force. It was an appropriate response that will make them think twice about doing it again.

For students of bad rhetoric, unsupported argument, vacuity, and cliche, please see the above. Or try the "America fuck yeah" video in the Iran thread.

Said without irony, too.

When the US bombs Russia's allies, do you think that will somehow turn them against Russia? Seems to me it's a win for Putin - I doubt Putin really cares about the loss of life among his allies.

The US bombing a key Russian ally is a win for Putin?

The US is more a leader now than it ever was. Number one economy, number one energy producer, number one military force on the globe. The US has effectively defended the West while Europe had to rebuild itself from its disastrous century of wars. It’s pretty clear the US is still the world leader, if not by choice, then at least because no one else has stepped up to the plate.

If such a loss of credibility would take place, what would it amount to?

I think it would reveal the Ayatollah’s “death to America” rhetoric to be empty, and his resolve to be weak. That’s not good for a country in grips of civil unrest.

Meanwhile your country gets to rest peacefully knowing American forces defend your continent while you sleep.

So what could it accomplish?

Nature has a way of ending beefs. The strongest wins.

It puts the Ayatollah in a tough sport. Fight back and be demolished. Or do nothing and lose your credibility.

That you're a goad and a deliberate annoyance is widely acknowledged and proclaimed, but we do not expect you to be stupid too. I feel a certain confidence about Putin, mainly that he's good at what he does, and if that means setting off a bomb under his own mother's petticoats while she's in them, I'm confident he'd do it even with a small, self-satisfied smile.

They are words on a screen. The deliberate annoyance is your own fault, as you goad yourself into a frothing fit each time you read them.

Your conspiracy theories only add to the tin-foil nature of your responses.

Trump is dead?

One of Iran’s top military leaders, Qasem Soleimani, was killed in a drone strike.

The action was the equivalent of Iran assassinating Colin Powell at the height of his popularity. They are not going to "sit down and shut up". They have enough surrogates in the region to do plenty of damage and they will. The question is will the US then escalate into a full scale war (which they would have no hope of winning, which they can't afford, and which mother Russia would not like at all). My guess is there will be some tit for tat and then a return to low level hostilities as before. In any case, this will be a good test of Putin's hold over Trump.

Putin has such a grip on Trump that Trump keeps bombing Putin’s allies. Perhaps the test has already failed. There was no grip.

"To protect our people there, we started a war with a country." Jesus, why are Americans so stupid? "In order to protect my car from your vandalism, I'll spray paint your house." "In order to protect my children in your school, I'll shoot the principal." "In order to protect my interest in your company, I'll destroy its main building." ETC.

I am not dissing you, NOS4A2, it's not your opinion, but the official line is the stupidest thing I've heard in my entire adult existence. It is a much bigger lie than I have ever suffered under Communism, and believe me, they knew how to lie.

No war was started. So it’s stupid to say there is a war when there isn’t one.

I’m no pacifist because evil men are stopped by violent force. The blood-soaked career of a terrorist commander has ended. I’m sorry for your loss.

If the official story is true, the strike was to protect American diplomats, servicemen and interests in Iraq. That seems to be a sufficient reason to attack. The official story is rarely true, however.

You are truly a saint in the basket of deplorables.

Lol just looking out for you, bub.

All it took to refute your piffle about announcements was to refer to the testimony. It was presumption, guesswork, fantasy. Like I said, fabricated from thin air. Do you admit this? No, you double down, kick the can down the road to the overheard phone call.

Watch as Holmes melts under cross examination.



I don’t care if you want to waste your time with me or not, I don’t care if you will not defend your fetid propaganda. You’re a lost cause. I’m trying to defend those you are lying to.

All of this was in order to coerce President Zelenksy to announce an investigation into the Bidens so as to undermine his 2020 campaign...

Which was attested by several thousand pages of witness testimony.

The witness testimony says otherwise:

Rep Mike Turner: 00:56:49 Not just the President, Giuliani didn’t tell you, Mulvaney didn’t tell you. Nobody. Pompeo didn’t tell you. Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations. Is that correct?

Gordon Sondland: 00:57:04 I think I already testified-

Rep Mike Turner: 00:57:05 No. Answer the question. Is it correct? No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations. Because if your answer is yes, then the Chairman’s wrong, and the headline on CNN is wrong. No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations, yes or no?

Gordon Sondland: 00:57:23 Yes.

Rep Mike Turner: 00:57:24 So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.

Gordon Sondland: 00:57:36 Other than my own presumption.

***

Mr. Castor: (01:08:42)
I want to turn back to your opener on page five under, when you talk about in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:09:05)
Correct.

Mr. Castor: (01:09:06)
And you acknowledge that this is speculation, right?

Gordon Sondland: (01:09:11)
It was a presumption.

Mr. Castor: (01:09:13)
Okay. That it was a guess. In fact, I think you even said this morning-

Gordon Sondland: (01:09:18)
Well, I want to say that it goes back to Mr. Goldman’s point or Chairman Schiff’s two plus two equaled four in my mind at that point.

Mr. Castor: (01:09:27)
Okay. But you didn’t have any evidence of that, correct?

***

Mr. Castor: (01:19:06)
And are you aware that he was also interested in better understanding the contributions of our European allies?

Gordon Sondland: (01:19:12)
That I’m definitely aware of.

Mr. Castor: (01:19:13)
And there was some back and forth between the state department officials trying to better understand that information for the President.

Gordon Sondland: (01:19:20)
Yes, that’s correct.

Mr. Castor: (01:19:21)
And how do you know that wasn’t the reason for the hold?

Gordon Sondland: (01:19:24)
I don’t.

Mr. Castor: (01:19:26)
But yet you speculate that there was, you know, a link to this announcement?

Gordon Sondland: (01:19:34)
I presumed it, yes.

So how do you explain your falsehoods—credulity or lies?

What is the origin of the concept "reason", how did its applications develop, and what does the term mean in relationship to current knowledge?

There are plenty of online dictionaries of etymology that might suffice to answer your questions.

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=reason

So more irrelevant nonsense then?

Let me know when you find some.

Well if according to the white house the bad terrorists are dead and we should be thanking them, maybe it's time for that military parade?

I think filling your head with dreams of coming wars and Adolph Trump suffices enough to keep you entertained.

All of this was in order to coerce President Zelenksy to announce an investigation into the Bidens so as to undermine his 2020 campaign. So, as always, your posts on this matter are the opposite of the reality - which as I suppose as a disinformation agent, you're supposed to do.

Completely fabricated from thin air, or Democrat propaganda, both of which suit useful idiots just perfectly.

Right. You're just ignoring the point in favor of an irrelevant red-herring appeal to the fact that armies exist.

No I’m ignoring your piffle and histrionics about this event in particular, and war in general.

Because of who they killed. Apparently Soulemani was one of the most important people in Iran, protege to the Iranian Ayatollah, and one of the top-most field commanders...

Are you even reading my posts? I'm saying Trump may have just precipitated war with Iran by assassinating a member of their government.

But of course, that's neither here nor there right? War is ambivalent; blowing shit up is what soldiers are for.

This was, according to the Whitehouse, a “decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad”. So much for sending them to die. But as you know, no war has been started.

Soulemani was the commander of the Quds force, a terrorist organization. I’m sorry for your loss.

I’m just saying no one is sending them to go die, but to carry out military operations. That kind of pacifist rhetoric is false on its face.

It was a missile attack against a terrorist organization threatening American soldiers and interests. Do you think that was stupid? Why?

No my point is soldiers volunteer to fight for their country and their leaders, and they do so knowing the risks involved. No one is sending them to die.

Oh shoot... You got me there. How can we blame politicians for starting wars? Since the soldiers voluntarily joined the army, it's not the politicians' fault...

Which war are you talking about?

Nothing about Biden or the 2020 election in those emails. They only suggest that all relevant actors were trying to do things legally, and in fact did so.

Some wise-ass once remarked that war consists of old men sending young men away to die.. (some old Roman dude IIRC)...

Some other dude once said that war seems sweet and romantic only to those who have never experienced it...

Conclusion: Old men who have never experienced war are sending young men to suffer and die; war kills the best of us, and we're then left with draft dodging cowards hypocritically waging war for frivolous and ultimately counter-national reasons.

It’s a volunteer army. It was a missile strike.

Too old.